Spot seems to think I had a nefarious reason for posting about ANDRILL in the koch brothers thread, but he seems to have missed a post that was waiting to be moderated.

Yet while we wait for him to catch up, and as it is not directly related to the BEST as he points out but was more a point about something so important that they changed their stance I will start this thread to discuss the ANDRILL project and this graph.

Which clearly shows the position we are at in the natural cycle and how far we have to go when comparing it to the other inter-glacials that it shows.

Well I feel that I should preface every post I make with I am not a scientist and don't claim to be an expert, but this does not really tell us anything revolutionary. My impression was that we should going from the thermal maximum to the the next ice age VERY slowly. We are however experiencing a relativity rapid warming since the start of the industrial revolution due to a well understood mechanism.

We know reasonably confidently has happened in the past and ANDRILL seems to be another piece of the jigsaw. To suggest that this means that CO2 does not effect climate and that bad things won't happen depending on how much CO2 we chose to put in the atmosphere seems to me to be a stretch.

It would be a start spot, yet we all know we are just blokes sitting at home arguing about stuff that we should all be out down the pub arguing about

I completely agree that it is another piece of the puzzle and disagree that it is one of importance showing the extremity of the natural cycle of which we have not peaked at yet.

As for the effect of CO2, don't think I have mentioned that yet in any of my posts but you seem to think that I have, which takes us back to you finding someone guilty of something just because they haven't agreed with your position from the first word. All I have inferred so far I believe is that we are still within the limits of the natural cycle and still have time to reach what the data from ANDRILL shows is the sea ice free antarctic and from the fine sediment layers a lot of the land based ice from around the shore. This coupled with the 20m+ sea level rise from each inter-glacial they have found.

It would be a start spot, yet we all know we are just blokes sitting at home arguing about stuff that we should all be out down the pub arguing about

I completely agree that it is another piece of the puzzle and disagree that it is one of importance showing the extremity of the natural cycle of which we have not peaked at yet.

As for the effect of CO2, don't think I have mentioned that yet in any of my posts but you seem to think that I have, which takes us back to you finding someone guilty of something just because they haven't agreed with your position from the first word. All I have inferred so far I believe is that we are still within the limits of the natural cycle and still have time to reach what the data from ANDRILL shows is the sea ice free antarctic and from the fine sediment layers a lot of the land based ice from around the shore. This coupled with the 20m+ sea level rise from each inter-glacial they have found.

Where did I say you were guilty of something? I said if someone is implying that sea-levels are rising due to some natural process rather then a manmade process the basis of this study they are wrong. I would say that's pointing out a mistake about a scientific issue, not an attempt to persecute you. Perhaps I am guilty of thinking you have an agenda you don't have but if you spend a bit on time on climate change forums you start to make these assumptions, it's the world we live in, there is a lot of people peddling misinformation on the subject sadly.

However confining ourselves to the subject in hand; sea-levels have been much higher in the past, understanding in detail the past will help us understand what will happen in the future I think it's interesting but conforms what I already believe.

Hard to take a name like spongebob seriously. The charts are useless(for environmentalism) and the link doesn't work either. The main site link worked, and the guy there is quoted as saying the Antarctic is heading back toward the way it was millions of years ago(i.e. less ice/no ice), so it is good to study the way it was. I suppose. Got to keep the funding coming in to drill.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Yes Spot there is a lot of people peddling mis-information but the results of the cores are clear to see. I am not saying we aren't accelerating it yet as a few things still don't fit in my opinion. Thank you for at least noticing you might be a little biased in the research I am bringing to the table, that I have to say is really surprising isn't being used by the GW camp because it clearly shows what happens in the natural cycle, and what happened last time CO2 was up at around 390-400ppm.

Yet it still clearly shows we are in the middle of a natural cycle, that is going to get hotter.

I read the link and you are full of crap. Nothing about us being in the middle of an interglacial, and the graphs had no details for the present Anthropocene. The only useful item it did say is that the WAIS could collapse with present AGW, within a 500 year time span and accompanied by EAIS melting, leading to up to a 7 meter sea level rise. It also said the record has numerous 1Ma gaps. The main site link worked, and the guy there is quoted as saying the Antarctic is heading back toward the way it was millions of years ago(i.e. less ice/no ice), so it is good to study the way it was.The longest interglacial in the past was about double the normal 10-15K years. The Milankovich Cycle(~100K years) is NOT exactly in synch with the axis tilt wobble cycles(~23K years, 11* tilt wobble), and that is what makes up the majority of variation.The present interglacial was on a cooling trend as the Earth's axis tilt went past 22* to the max of 23* and the maximum ellipticity of orbit of the Milankovich cycle coincides, this time. In 2000 more years, we should have been entering the ice age epoch, but will not because of HGHGs. You can compare it to the 400PPM CO2 of over 4 million years ago, but the continents are moved and CO2 will go far beyond 400PPM. The high northern latitudes are already at 400PPM.So with AETM we get another 22' of sea level rise to top off the over 500' rise from early in the interglacial. Humans will have died off and be in small numbers. If the Yellowstone super volcano erupts in 2K years it will cool it only 1/3 of the way, and only until the aerosols settle out. What could have helped the start of the ice age will do nothing to stop a period of skipping two complete ice ages, until the CO2 is re-sequestered. Then it will be several million more to get back species diversity, and probably no humans left to study the WAIS.PS: look at your last chart----5 glacials in 500K years=100K years for each with slight variability from the difference between the tip wobble cycle and the elliptical orbital cycle. This one is coming right on at the tip max and ellipse max in 2.4K years, but it won't happen with a methane turnover event that the Earth is heading toward because of human pollution from HGHGs. Shove your BS.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Yes Spot there is a lot of people peddling mis-information but the results of the cores are clear to see. I am not saying we aren't accelerating it yet as a few things still don't fit in my opinion. Thank you for at least noticing you might be a little biased in the research I am bringing to the table, that I have to say is really surprising isn't being used by the GW camp because it clearly shows what happens in the natural cycle, and what happened last time CO2 was up at around 390-400ppm.

Yet it still clearly shows we are in the middle of a natural cycle, that is going to get hotter.

You have demonstrated what happens in a natural cycle very well however I'm not convinced that we are currently in a natural cycle, I think it's the unnaturalness of the current warming that is more of a concern to members of this forum.

I read the link and you are full of crap. Nothing about us being in the middle of an interglacial, and the graphs had no details for the present Anthropocene. The only useful item it did say is that the WAIS could collapse with present AGW, within a 500 year time span and accompanied by EAIS melting, leading to up to a 7 meter sea level rise. It also said the record has numerous 1Ma gaps.The longest interglacial in the past was about double the normal 10-15K years. The Milankovich Cycle(100K years) is NOT exactly in synch with the axis tilt wobble cycles(23K years, 11* tilt wobble), and that is what makes up the majority of variation.The present interglacial was on a cooling trend as the Earth's axis tilt went past 22* to the max of 23* and the maximum ellipticity of orbit of the Milankovich cycle coincides, this time. In 2000 more years, we should have been entering the ice age epoch, but will not because of HGHGs. You can compare it to the 400PPM CO2 of over 4 million years ago, but the continents are moved and CO2 will go far beyond 400PPM.So with AETM we get another 22' of sea level rise to top off the over 500' rise from early in the interglacial. Humans will have died off and be in small numbers. If the Yellowstone super volcano erupts in 2K years it will cool it only 1/3 of the way, and only until the aerosols settle out. What could have helped the start of the ice age will do nothing to stop a period of skipping two complete ice ages, until the CO2 is re-sequestered. Then it will be several million more to get back species diversity, and probably no humans left to study the WAIS.

Funny that as I didn't say anything about the paper, or research saying what we are in but was showing the graph representing the interglacials and how the end of the graph (on the right, or 0ybp) shows the position we are in compared to the others. Another thing I believe I mentioned is that they only discuss the last million years on one or two papers and the rest discuss 3-5, 17-24 and 30-50 million years.

Thanks for the lesson on the Milnkovich cycles but you are slightly off.

Yes Spot there is a lot of people peddling mis-information but the results of the cores are clear to see. I am not saying we aren't accelerating it yet as a few things still don't fit in my opinion. Thank you for at least noticing you might be a little biased in the research I am bringing to the table, that I have to say is really surprising isn't being used by the GW camp because it clearly shows what happens in the natural cycle, and what happened last time CO2 was up at around 390-400ppm.

Yet it still clearly shows we are in the middle of a natural cycle, that is going to get hotter.

You have demonstrated what happens in a natural cycle very well however I'm not convinced that we are currently in a natural cycle, I think it's the unnaturalness of the current warming that is more of a concern to members of this forum.

Thanks, I am still not convinced we have upset the system that much yet but do agree that pollution needs to stop and as we have put ourselves in the position of managing our land based environment that it has to be balanced. I am also surprised when the antarctic temperature was found to be around 8C warmer than today during some of the interglacials, which is covered in other papers from ANDRILL as well, that we don't see a much sharper jump in the temperature than we have so far.

So everyone has run and hid from this research, after re-reading some of the papers again I have found a few interesting things such as this

"Ice core data from the last glacial period in Greenland show that change at that time could proceed rapidly - with several increases of more than 10ºC within a decade to possibly one to two years (Fig. 3.13); comparable changes in Antarctica were much slower."

From

Chapter 3Antarctic climate and environment history in the pre-instrumental period

It also states in the same paper a few times that the last interglacial was 3-5C warmer than today with only 300ppm CO2, so as I said before, with the current rate of CO2 being at approx 400ppm and yet cooler temperatures than that interglacial it is surprising that if CO2 has such a control over the climate that the temperatures we see today are not warmer and rising faster than they are.

So everyone has run and hid from this research, after re-reading some of the papers again I have found a few interesting things such as this

"Ice core data from the last glacial period in Greenland show that change at that time could proceed rapidly - with several increases of more than 10ºC within a decade to possibly one to two years (Fig. 3.13); comparable changes in Antarctica were much slower."

From

Chapter 3Antarctic climate and environment history in the pre-instrumental period

It also states in the same paper a few times that the last interglacial was 3-5C warmer than today with only 300ppm CO2, so as I said before, with the current rate of CO2 being at approx 400ppm and yet cooler temperatures than that interglacial it is surprising that if CO2 has such a control over the climate that the temperatures we see today are not warmer and rising faster than they are.

What other changes are there since the last interglacial and how much confirmation is there on their data? They have had several years since to give more information.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Yes Spot there is a lot of people peddling mis-information but the results of the cores are clear to see. I am not saying we aren't accelerating it yet as a few things still don't fit in my opinion. Thank you for at least noticing you might be a little biased in the research I am bringing to the table, that I have to say is really surprising isn't being used by the GW camp because it clearly shows what happens in the natural cycle, and what happened last time CO2 was up at around 390-400ppm.

Yet it still clearly shows we are in the middle of a natural cycle, that is going to get hotter.

You have demonstrated what happens in a natural cycle very well however I'm not convinced that we are currently in a natural cycle, I think it's the unnaturalness of the current warming that is more of a concern to members of this forum.

You can not deny that solar activity has dramatically increased during the 20th Century, which would make the 20th Century Warming be at least partially natural (Svensmark et al. 2000)

Yes Spot there is a lot of people peddling mis-information but the results of the cores are clear to see. I am not saying we aren't accelerating it yet as a few things still don't fit in my opinion. Thank you for at least noticing you might be a little biased in the research I am bringing to the table, that I have to say is really surprising isn't being used by the GW camp because it clearly shows what happens in the natural cycle, and what happened last time CO2 was up at around 390-400ppm.

Yet it still clearly shows we are in the middle of a natural cycle, that is going to get hotter.

You have demonstrated what happens in a natural cycle very well however I'm not convinced that we are currently in a natural cycle, I think it's the unnaturalness of the current warming that is more of a concern to members of this forum.

You can not deny that solar activity has dramatically increased during the 20th Century, which would make the 20th Century Warming be at least partially natural (Svensmark et al. 2000)

Figure 12.

I can deny it your citing a very controversial paper. I don't really think that cosmic rays impacting cloud formation are the best explanation for anything that they are claimed to do. Furthermore I don't think you are capable of understanding anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't read what you reference let alone the rebuttals.

There spot is the problem, most of their papers only talk about millions of years ago and the last million years, last 50k years, last 20k years and last 2k years are in soundbites in the papers, I agree that they have had enough time to show these years in more detail but the papers I have read so far still don't show it in enough.

Yet from the quote in my last post, they confirm that the northern hemisphere temperature can change extremely quickly in the last glacial and it would be interesting to find the papers (when I have some spare time) that discuss this from the data in the arctic circle, as it would mean the warming we have had over the last 150+ years is nothing in comparison. Yet in the papers I have found available from 2009/2010 talking about the 2007/08/09 seasons they talk about the temperature range of the diatoms(sea living tiny shelled creatures) and that they can accurately tell the local temperature from them, so the fact they are there clearly indicates (with the sediment type as well) that a sea ice free antarctic is nothing unusual in the natural system.

As I have shown before from their papers they also discuss that the last glacial was 300ppm CO2 and yet the temperature was 3-8C depending on which paper it is from, though they do not clearly show how far back the higher temperature goes, so 3-5C is the temperatures they clearly show for the last interglacial. While we are topping 400ppm very soon the temperature rise we currently see does not match the history by a serious amount if CO2 is the main driver of our climate we are led to believe.